I was not trying to get high handed. While Hawaii is a good example, its not for what the guy said who I replied to. He specifically spoke about the
US illegally occupying territory and referenced the UN.

My response was to correct his mistake to point out that there are only 3 territories left on the UN list that are connected to the US. I also pointed
out that those territories have representation in the FEderal Government, they have their local government, and one of the islands has their tribal
leaders. As far as the comment about native American goes, thats a shared tragedy between Europe and the US.

I am not sure where he got the term illegally but thats fine. That was the point of my response to him, to correct the mistake. I was also trying to
figure out how a story about Easter Island and Chile devolved into a blame the US thread, but whatever works for the poster.

As far as Hawaii goes, just like any other state in the Union, they can change their status around by vote if thats what they want. I know the local
indigenous population have looked into redress and other legal issues. Its up to Hawaii though.

Well just to let you know, I lived on Guam for Five years. The local government is absolutely corrupted and the islands economy is supported by the
large military build up on island (Along with money that is allocated from congress to them). if the US government were to up and leave and take its
bases with it, the locally economy (Which would only be supported by Guams tourism) would crumble away and the people on island would be driven into a
more inpoverished state then they are already in. God forbid we do that to them.

I am not suggesting we up and run. What I was saying is Guam can choose its own future at any point it wants. They can remain status quo, become an
independant nation, or apply for Statehood. The decision is theirs.

Well just to let you know, I lived on Guam for Five years. The local government is absolutely corrupted and the islands economy is supported by the
large military build up on island (Along with money that is allocated from congress to them). if the US government were to up and leave and take its
bases with it, the locally economy (Which would only be supported by Guams tourism) would crumble away and the people on island would be driven into a
more inpoverished state then they are already in. God forbid we do that to them.

The horrible state of "corruption" was made possible by the infusion of US/military spending no? If that money disappeard the locals would most
likely revert to some sort of mutual benefit type society, because they would have no other choice, once left to their own means. It would probably
be a much more interesting place for tourists to visit. Just MHO.

I understand waht you and the other poster are saying. The people of Guam, or any other territory, can vote to change their status at any point they
wish. Statehood, independant, commonwealth etc etc. All they need to do is get together and see what they like best, and go from there.

If they became independant, I dont see much changing, other than an income from leasing the bases on the island to the Guam government. Heck the could
boot us out, redevlop the island into a tropical gambeling mecca perfectly situated to pull people from all over the world.

Nobody said, or even insuated they were happier now or before, so not sure what your huff is. The people of Guam can determine their own future at any
point they want. As far as their status prior, World War II kinda of caused massive issues in the Pacific. Since you are implying the US never gave
them a choice I will point out the US was neutral during WWII.

Had Japan not attacked us, Guam would either be their own or part of the Japanese Empire.

Contrary to the urge to blame everything on the US, sometimes its not actually because of us. As I said, they can change their status anytime they
want, all they need to do is introduce it and vote on it.

Now, if they are happier or not is up to them, including buying our materialistic "crap".

As this thread has nothing to do with the US, lets not pull it off topic by playing polotics no one will agree on.

. I hate to say it, but you've proven again your allegiance to Marxist-racism. This idea that there is no such
thing as an ethnic/cultural identity within Europe is a new concept instilled only by decades of Establishment indoctrination.

Firstly, it'd help if we defined 'indigenous'. The normally-reliable Merriam-Webster gives a meaningless definition of: produced, growing,
living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment. Dictionary.com offers: originating in and characteristic of a particular
region or country, which I find more meaningful.

According to that understanding, a tribe that originates in a region is therefore indigenous to that region. There are no specifications about an
indigenous tribe being the first peoples to populate a piece of land. Accordingly, the Angles who settled and gave their name to Engla Land (England)
can not be defined as indigenous to England because their cultural and genetic peculiarities originated elsewhere in Denmark and Northern Germany. But
the flipside to that coin is that the Angles are indigenous to Denmark. The Welsh (and their Brythonic counterparts elsewhere in Britain) are
indigenous to Britain because their language, culture and genetic peculiarities are unique to, and developed in, Britain. I could continue with
several more examples but in the interest of concise posting I'll let imaginations fill in the blanks. The overall picture is of a Europe consisting
of both indigenous peoples and inter-migratory ones.

Two further important points:

- Inter-European migration of Caucasian tribes (whose culture is, at-source, similar - we simply need to look at the counterpart gods of the Roman,
Greek, Norse and Celtic pantheons to ascertain this) is a different ball-game to the inter-global migration that currently targets Europe
primarily for total-alteration.

- I'm being quite generous in conceding that the English are not indigenous to England. In-fitting with the dictionary.com definition of
'indigenous', the English are actually "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country", for the English are not the same as
the Danish/German - not in terms of language, culture, law or even appearance. When the Angles settled England, they, along with the Saxons, Jutes,
Frisians and existing Celtic/Brythonic populations formed a new coherent English nation and people which has no likenesses elsewhere. The same cannot
be said for most of the ghettoised immigrant communities in Europe.

And I'm also interested in whatever evidence you have which suggests that Europe was ever settled by non-Caucasians? This is news to me.

I suppose it depends how you define indigenous (here defined by the free dictionary on
line!). It would also be possible to argue that they were an introduced species!

Semantics really. My point was that they too came from elsewhere, but yes I agree they are the original natives and therefore have a claim.

I would have said we are singing from the same hymn sheet as far as population demographics go but I accept your definition that indigenous is
referring to the first onto the plot and therefore I can say I am an indigenous Welshman, but not one of those Southern kind - they are Iberian! (Just
like the 'black' Irish) (

These Celtic nationalities are all that is left of an ancient civilisation, which left its mark from Asia Minor to Ireland. The Celts were the
first Trans-Alpine people to emerge into recorded history, originating, according to ancient chroniclers, from the region round the Lower Danube. They
invaded and settled in Italy at the beginning of the third century BC and sacked Rome in 387-386 BC. The Romans remained under Celtic domination until
349 BC when they rose against their conquerors and by 355 BC the Celtic conquest had been turned back. However, the Celts remained in Italy as
settlers down to imperial times. Evidence of their settlement is shown in such place names in northern Italy as Trevi, Treviso, Treviglio, the River
Trebia, etc. A comparison with some Cornish place names is interesting.

The earliest archaeological culture commonly accepted as Celtic, or rather Proto-Celtic, was the central European Hallstatt culture (ca. 800-450
BC), named for the rich grave finds in Hallstatt, Austria.[2] By the later La Tène period (ca. 450 BC up to the Roman conquest), this Celtic culture
had expanded over a wide range of regions, whether by diffusion or migration: to the British Isles (Insular Celts), the Iberian Peninsula
(Celtiberians, Celtici), much of Central Europe, (Gauls) and following the Gallic invasion of the Balkans in 279 BC as far east as central Anatolia
(Galatians).

And Caucasians? Well not actually a 'race' as such (depending how you define race of course.)

The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the
indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used
to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. In common use, specifically in American English, the term
is sometimes restricted to Europeans and other lighter-skinned populations within these areas, and may be considered equivalent to the varying
definitions of white people

These peoples are not culturally similar to the Celts for example and could not be considered to be the same 'race'

The name "Caucasian" for white people includes an open genealogy, one originating in the work of a pioneering social scientist, Johann Friedrich
Blumenbach. Beneath this history of classification and measurement, however, lies another, hidden history of beauty and hierarchy. Blumenbach's
embrace of beauty links his classification, which serves large geographical races and American racial binaries, with the nineteenth-century division
of white people into better and lesser breeds. Blumenbach borrowed the name "Caucasian" from a reactionary colleague who was interested in setting
Germans and Aryans at the top of the white heap.

White people are called "Caucasian" because Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), an influential German scholar in an up-and-coming German
university, chose the name on 11 April 1795 in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, in what would become Germany. Blumenbach's and Göttingen's scholarly
prestige made "Caucasian" a scientific classification.11 The term "Caucasian" quickly entered scientific discourse, appearing first in English in an
1807 translation of Blumenbach's Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie (A Short System of Comparative Anatomy) by the influential English surgeon
William Lawrence (1783-1867).

The question of course is did the people of Easter Island come from Polynesia or from Chile?

They are believed to have been Polynesian. There is considerable uncertainty about the accuracy of this legend as well as the date of settlement.
Published literature suggests the island was settled around 300-400 CE, or at about the time of the arrival of the earliest settlers in Hawaii. Some
scientists say that Easter Island was not inhabited until 700-800 CE. This date range is based on glottochronological calculations and on three
radiocarbon dates from charcoal that appears to have been produced during forest clearance activities.[5] Moreover a recent study which included
radiocarbon dates from what is thought to be very early material suggests that the island was settled as recently as 1200 CE

I wouldn't be sweating the technicalities too much. It is obvious that they have lived there long enough before the modern day country of Chile
existed to be the rightful "owners" of the land in so much as any of us really owns anything.

We know from what has gone on for the last century that big business is gobbling up prime property along beaches all over the world and the people who
lived there before were have not been paid their rightful dues. It is time that practice was halted. These islanders deserve to have the rest of
the world's unwavering support.

I recently saw a story in Guatemala I believe, where the same thing was happening -- in that case it was Americans swindling the locals out of their
land and destroying the natural beauty to put up ever bigger commercial monstrosities. In that case the locals eventually won out, sort of, regained
some of their land, and many projects stand half completed. The newly empowered locals are being accused now of corruption of their own. Somehow
I still think its an improvement nevertheless.

Everytime Guam trys to pass Prop. B (Casinos and gambling establishments) it gets shot down because they know the ancesteral locals with blow all
there cash on gabling and become more impoverished, even when they tried to pass it where only people visiting as tourists could gamble it got shot
down. So the whole casino thing wouldent work.

. I hate to say it, but you've proven again your allegiance to Marxist-racism. This idea that there is no such thing
as an ethnic/cultural identity within Europe is a new concept instilled only by decades of Establishment indoctrination.

There is not AN ethnic / cultural identity within Europe. There are over a hundred distinct cultures, and at least eight "indigenous"
ethnicities. If you really think there's just one of each, I'm afraid it would be you who is subscribing to "marxist racism" - Since if you've ever
read Marx, you'd know he denied any such things as cultural or ethnic differences, with the argument that all workers are the same people.

But of course, people who bitch about Marx have generally never read his writing, out of fear that they might get "tainted" like it's the King In
Yellow or something.

Firstly, it'd help if we defined 'indigenous'. The normally-reliable Merriam-Webster gives a meaningless definition of: produced,
growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment. Dictionary.com offers: originating in and characteristic of a
particular region or country, which I find more meaningful.

Alright. You're in for a hell of a ride if you want to talk about Europe with that sort of definition, then.

According to that understanding, a tribe that originates in a region is therefore indigenous to that region. There are no specifications about
an indigenous tribe being the first peoples to populate a piece of land. Accordingly, the Angles who settled and gave their name to Engla Land
(England) can not be defined as indigenous to England because their cultural and genetic peculiarities originated elsewhere in Denmark and Northern
Germany. But the flipside to that coin is that the Angles are indigenous to Denmark. The Welsh (and their Brythonic counterparts elsewhere in
Britain) are indigenous to Britain because their language, culture and genetic peculiarities are unique to, and developed in, Britain. I could
continue with several more examples but in the interest of concise posting I'll let imaginations fill in the blanks. The overall picture is of a
Europe consisting of both indigenous peoples and inter-migratory ones.

And depending on how far back you want to go, all the groups you just mentioned are indigenous to the area that is today Georgia / Russia / Armenia.
Further than that, and they're indigenous to Iran. It gets a little murky after that, but they're basically milling around Central Asia.

Two further important points:

- Inter-European migration of Caucasian tribes (whose culture is, at-source, similar - we simply need to look at the counterpart gods of the Roman,
Greek, Norse and Celtic pantheons to ascertain this) is a different ball-game to the inter-global migration that currently targets Europe
primarily for total-alteration.

"Caucasians" were in Europe way before the Indo-European pantheons moved in. Which is why we have things like the Titans and Fomorians. Which
is why the Celts - among the first of the Indo-European migrants - had pantheons that ultimately looked nothing like those by later immigrants. Which
is why the head god of the Norse pantheon is not Indo-European (in fact a large chunk of those gods aren't!)

It's also worth mentioning that Europe wasn't the only place to receive this same culture - Persia and India share the same "pantheon package." And
then we have the case of the Hebrews, who abandoned their Egyptian pantheon in favor of worshipping the Indo-European thunder god.

- I'm being quite generous in conceding that the English are not indigenous to England. In-fitting with the dictionary.com definition of
'indigenous', the English are actually "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country", for the English are not the same as the
Danish/German - not in terms of language, culture, law or even appearance. When the Angles settled England, they, along with the Saxons, Jutes,
Frisians and existing Celtic/Brythonic populations formed a new coherent English nation and people which has no likenesses elsewhere

Wow. That's some ahistorical kumbuya bullcrap right there. The invading Germanics didn't form anything with the Brythons, except for a lot of dead
people. It was a blood-spattered war of conquest, and the Celts had the misfortune of having just gotten done with a generation of warfare with the
Romans, and so lost, getting driven into the West and North.

The same cannot be said for most of the ghettoised immigrant communities in Europe.

This line only makes sense with your magical fantasy history where all the white people held hands and built a single culture and were awesome and are
now being oppressed by those naughty naughty mud people.

And I'm also interested in whatever evidence you have which suggests that Europe was ever settled by non-Caucasians? This is news to me.

Careful with your "evers" - Neandertals and the people that gave us the cro-magnon culture were certainly not white, or even caucasian (the Cro's
features are closer to those of modern Papuans, in fact). The Neolithic immigrants to southern Europe were also very unlikely to fall into that
particular category. And the Siberians who peopled Scandinavia-Finland prior to the Germanic immigration waves?

Also, caucasians? Well, I guess if we discount those three I just mentioned, the answer could fairly be never. After all, the Huns, Turks, Magyars,
Arabs, Avars, Phoenicians, Tatars, et al are all "caucasians." As they still are - and as are the Pakistanis and Indians who are immigrating to Europe
today (along with the Turks and Arabs who you probably had in mind when you were griping)

Yes! I'm not an anthropologist and I'm not privvy to the science, more the history. I'll hold my hands up here and admit that I was simply using
what seemed to be the more 'acceptable' label.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There is not AN ethnic / cultural identity within Europe. There are over a hundred distinct cultures, and at least eight "indigenous"
ethnicities.

We already established that. When I said "an" I was using it in the plural tense.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
But of course, people who bitch about Marx have generally never read his writing, out of fear that they might get "tainted" like it's the King In
Yellow or something.

Oh I've read his writings. I used to agree with them too.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And depending on how far back you want to go, all the groups you just mentioned are indigenous to the area that is today Georgia / Russia / Armenia.
Further than that, and they're indigenous to Iran. It gets a little murky after that, but they're basically milling around Central Asia.

Point being what? My point was that by dictionary.com's definition, if a culture is unique to a particular region, then it is indigenous. So unless
you're claiming that Danish culture is highly similar to Iranian, or even Georgian culture...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Which is why the head god of the Norse pantheon is not Indo-European (in fact a large chunk of those gods aren't!)

Woden originates where then?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Wow. That's some ahistorical kumbuya bullcrap right there. The invading Germanics didn't form anything with the Brythons, except for a lot of dead
people.

That depends on if you believe the invading Germanic tribes wiped out the existing people or assimilated them partly or largely into their
communities. All the evidence I've seen suggest the latter.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This line only makes sense with your magical fantasy history where all the white people held hands and built a single culture and were awesome and are
now being oppressed by those naughty naughty mud people.

No, you've misunderstood the line then. The point was that English culture doesn't exist elsewhere (aside from the new world colonies, in part) yet,
for example, Polish culture does. So there's a big difference between the partial Polish colonisation of England and the early colonisation by
Germanic tribes.

And please don't try and make out like I have a dislike for non-whites with your "naughty naughty mud people" bit. It's not big and it's not
clever.

Now, if you were to apply all that effort and thinking to the Rapanui, we might find that they're equally as non-indigenous as you believe the
various folks of Europe to be.

Everytime Guam trys to pass Prop. B (Casinos and gambling establishments) it gets shot down because they know the ancesteral locals with blow all
there cash on gabling and become more impoverished, even when they tried to pass it where only people visiting as tourists could gamble it got shot
down. So the whole casino thing wouldent work.

The fact they can vote on it though, at least to me, counters the claims made. If they were their own nation, the thinkin might be a little different,
but thats another topic and thread.

To me the only reason for the pushing reference the Island, I dont think has anything to do with land, but resources. Under UN charter there is
something called an EEZ - Economic Exclusion Zone, which can extend up to 200 miles from territorial land. There is no telling what resources are
under the ocean between mainland and Island, and I would guess that is a bigger factor that whats being reported, imo anyways.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
You still (despite insults substituting for reasoning) have not refuted my statement: define an indigenous Eurpean, please. As far as "dangerous"
goes, I suspect there will be references to "Aryans" further along in your arguments, again a falsehood considering how convoluted European history
is.

No insults my friend - 'smart-a**s' was intended to be a jovial reference, not a genuine insult.

As explained in my post, I agree that it's useless talking about an 'indigenous European' (though all of the tribes of Europe stem from the same
caucasian race - the only race which is indigenous to Europe). However, I'd be happy to define an indigenous 'Briton', 'Frenchman' or 'Finn' if
you'd like. Do you disagree that such things exist? I don't believe that you're THAT racist.

You must be quite a dancer; I've seldom seen that kind of move before. Most of Europe is populated from the steps of Asia, hence asian euros. Again,
I ask: define an indigenous European.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
You must be quite a dancer; I've seldom seen that kind of move before. Most of Europe is populated from the steps of Asia, hence asian euros. Again,
I ask: define an indigenous European.

I thought he answered it quite well actually.
If you do a little bit of research there are lots of parts of europe hoping to break away from the larger nations they are a part off.
It wasn't just the rest of the world Europeans were carving up into arbitrary chunks throughout the 19th centuary

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.